Dems on FEC open to new regs on donors, Internet

[GURPS]

Dems on FEC open to new regs on donors, Internet



Claiming that thousands of public comments condemning “dark money” in politics can’t be ignored, the Democrat-chaired Federal Election Commission on Wednesday appeared ready to open the door to new regulations on donors, bloggers and others who use the Internet to influence policy and campaigns.

During a broad FEC hearing to discuss a recent Supreme Court decision that eliminated some donor limits, proponents encouraged the agency to draw up new funding disclosure rules and require even third-party internet-based groups to reveal donors, a move that would extinguish a 2006 decision to keep the agency’s hands off the Internet.

Noting the 32,000 public comments that came into the FEC in advance of the hearing, Democratic Commissioner Ellen L. Weintraub said, “75 percent thought that we need to do more about money in politics, particularly in the area of disclosure. And I think that's something that we can't ignore.”

But a former Republican FEC chairman said in his testimony that if the agency moves to regulate the Internet, including news voices like the Drudge Report as GOP commissioners have warned, many thousands more comments will flood in in opposition of regulation.

 

[GURPS]

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/d...ternet-campaigns-blogs-drudge/article/2555270


Democratic FEC Vice Chair Ann M. Ravel announced plans to begin the process to win regulations on Internet-based campaigns and videos, currently free from most of the FEC’s rules. “A reexamination of the commission’s approach to the internet and other emerging technologies is long over due,” she said.

The power play followed a deadlocked 3-3 vote on whether an Ohio anti-President Obama Internet campaign featuring two videos violated FEC rules when it did not report its finances or offer a disclosure on the ads. The ads were placed for free on YouTube and were not paid advertising.

Under a 2006 FEC rule, free political videos and advocacy sites have been free of regulation in a bid to boost voter participation in politics. Only Internet videos that are placed for a fee on websites, such as the Washington Examiner, are regulated just like normal TV ads.

Ravel’s statement suggests that she would regulate right-leaning groups like America Rising that posts anti-Democrat YouTube videos on its website.

FEC Chairman Lee E. Goodman, a Republican, said if regulation extends that far, then anybody who writes a political blog, runs a politically active news site or even chat room could be regulated. He added that funny internet campaigns like “Obama Girl,” and “Jib Jab” would also face regulations.

“I told you this was coming,” he told Secrets. Earlier this year he warned that Democrats on the panel were gunning for conservative Internet sites like the Drudge Report.

 

[GURPS]

http://www.breitbart.com/video/2015...roposed-internet-regulation-mimics-obamacare/



Republican FCC Commissioner Ajit Pai said that proposed Internet regulation “mimics Obamacare” both in process and substance, was “adopting a solution that won’t work to a problem that doesn’t exist using legal authority we don’t have,” and would lead to “billions of dollars in new taxes” on Wednesday’s “Mark Levin Show.”

“I’ve got to tell you that I’ve heard from a lot of people who are amazed at how the entire process that this issue has progressed on, and the substance of it mimics Obamacare that Washington bureaucracy would keep this plan in the dark, wouldn’t release it until after it was voted on, and you have the FCC, or any federal agency essentially micromanaging the private sector” he stated.

Pai declared that, “in [an] unprecedented fashion, right after the November elections the president announced, not just what he wanted the FCC to do, but the very legal foundation by which he wanted the FCC to it.”

Pai also railed against the lack of transparency, arguing “a monumental shift in favor of government control of the Internet and the American public is not going to be able to see it until after the FCC votes on it.”

He continued that, “nowhere does the agency identify any kind of systemic harm in the Internet economy, but nonetheless it invents one in order to regulate it, and so it’s this classic situation where we’re adopting a solution that won’t work to a problem that doesn’t exist using legal authority we don’t have.”